Transatlantic Lines LLC v. Portus Stevedoring LLC
Filing
77
ORDER granting 50 Third-Party Defendant McAllister Towing and Transportation Co. Inc.'s Motion for Final Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 7/17/2015. (ns)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
IN ADMIRALTY
CASE NO. 14-60528-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
TRANSATLANTIC LINES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
PORTUS STEVEDORING LLC,
Defendant,
v.
MOBRO MARINE INC. and MCALLISTER
TOWING AND TRANSPORTATION CO. INC.,
Third-Party Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING MCALLISTER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Third-Party Defendant McAllister Towing
and Transportation Co. Inc.'s Motion for Final Summary Judgment [DE 50] ("Motion").
The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record in this case, and is otherwise
advised in the premises. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will grant
summary judgment for McAllister on Portus's claim against it for contribution.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Transatlantic Lines LLC ("Transatlantic") operates a cargo-transport
service between Jacksonville, Florida, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. DE 1 (Complaint)
¶ 3. In early 2013, Transatlantic chartered the barge "Atlantic Trader" from Third-Party
Defendant McAllister Towing and Transportation Co. Inc. ("McAllister") for use in its
business. Id. ¶ 8; DE 30 (Amended Third Party Complaint) ¶ 5. This arrangement was
governed by a written charter agreement between Transatlantic and McAllister. See
DE 50-4 at 72–85 ("Charter").
On or about March 2, 2013, having accepted delivery of the Atlantic Trader (see
DE 50-1 at 6, 14), Transatlantic hired Defendant Portus Stevedoring LLC ("Portus") to
load and secure cargo on the barge for shipment to Cuba. Compl. ¶ 6. Third-Party
Defendant Mobro Marine Inc. ("Mobro") assisted in this effort by modifying and repairing
the Atlantic Trader, including parts of the barge's cargo-securing system. Am. 3d Pty.
Compl. ¶ 4.
Thereafter, the Atlantic Trader departed for Cuba. By March 4, 2013, the barge
had made its way from Jacksonville to waters off the coast of South Florida. Compl. ¶ 9.
At this point in the voyage, the Atlantic Trader's cargo-securing system failed, and over
30 cargo containers were damaged or lost overboard as a result. Id. In its Complaint,
Transatlantic alleges that Portus's carelessness in loading and securing the cargo
containers caused the cargo-securing system to fail. On this basis, Transatlantic has
asserted three claims against Portus: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied
warranty of workmanlike performance; and (3) negligence. Id. ¶¶ 14–27.
Portus has answered Transatlantic's Complaint and has raised a number of
affirmative defenses. See DE 6. Portus also has filed third-party claims against Mobro
and McAllister for contribution under Rule 14(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See generally Am. 3d Pty. Compl. Portus alleges that Mobro is liable for any harms
Transatlantic suffered because Mobro did poor work in modifying and repairing the
Atlantic Trader. Id. ¶¶ 10–13. Portus also alleges that McAllister bears liability for its
failure to deliver the Atlantic Trader to Transatlantic in acceptable condition. Id. ¶¶ 14–
2
18. Now before the Court is McAllister's Motion, in which McAllister seeks summary
judgment in its favor on Portus's claim against it for contribution.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party "always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying
those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). To satisfy this
burden, the movant must show the court that "there is an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at 325.
After the movant has met its burden under Rule 56(a), the burden of production
shifts, and the non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). As Rule 56 explains, "[i]f a party fails to properly
support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of
fact . . . the court may . . . grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting
materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled
to it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3). Therefore, the non-moving party "may not rest upon the
mere allegations or denials in its pleadings" but instead must present "specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1576–
77 (11th Cir. 1990). In deciding a summary-judgment motion, the Court must view the
facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable
inferences in that party's favor. Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759, 763 (11th Cir. 2006).
3
III. DISCUSSION
In the Motion, McAllister seeks summary judgment on Portus's sole claim against
it for contribution. McAllister argues that it cannot be found liable for any of
Transatlantic's harms arising from the condition of the Atlantic Trader, because
Transatlantic waived the implied warranty of seaworthiness and accepted the Atlantic
Trader "as is." The Court agrees with McAllister, and will grant the Motion.
In its Amended Third-Party Complaint, Portus alleges that McAllister is liable for
Transatlantic's harms relating to the failure of the cargo-securing system on the Atlantic
Trader because McAllister furnished the barge to Transatlantic in a condition unfit for
use. Am. 3d Pty. Compl. ¶¶ 14–17. In their papers, the parties agree that Portus rests
its contribution claim against McAllister upon a duty to provide a barge that was fit for
service. See DE 50 at 13–14; DE 54 at 7, 11. This duty of a ship owner to provide a
charterer with a ship fit for service is referred to as the warranty of seaworthiness. E.g.,
Aguirre v. Citizens Cas. Co. of N.Y., 441 F.2d 141, 143–44 (5th Cir. 1971)1; Martinez v.
Sea Land Serv., Inc., 763 F.2d 26, 27–28 (1st Cir. 1985).
When the owner of a ship offers the vessel for charter, the charter by its nature
carries an implied warranty of seaworthiness. Work v. Leathers, 97 U.S. 379, 380
(1878); Thomas Jordan, Inc. v. Mayronne Drilling Mud, Chem. & Eng'g Serv., 214 F.2d
410, 412 (5th Cir. 1954). The parties devote much of their papers to the interplay
between the nature of the Charter in this case—which McAllister contends is a
"bareboat" charter (see DE 50 at 15–19)—and the warranty of seaworthiness. See id.
1
Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981, are binding
precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209
(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
4
at 15–19; DE 54 at 9–11. However, the categorization of a charter as a bareboat charter
or otherwise bears primarily upon a ship owner's potential liability to third parties during
the charter. See Lovette v. Happy Hooker II, No. 04-522, 2006 WL 66722 at *3 (M.D.
Fla. Jan. 11, 2006); 2 Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty & Mar. Law § 11-3 (Westlaw
5th ed. 2014).
In contrast, this case as it relates to McAllister involves the question of a ship
owner's liability directly to the charterer. The owner-charterer relationship is contractual.
See, e.g., Zidell, Inc. v. Cargo, Freight & Subfreight of Barge ZPC 404, 661 F. Supp.
960, 962–64 (W.D. Wash. 1987); Neubros Corp. v. Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co., 359 F. Supp. 310,
318–20 (E.D.N.Y. 1972); Hercules Powder Co. v. Commercial Transp. Corp., 270 F.
Supp. 676, 679–82 (N.D. Ill. 1967). As noted above, an owner's warranty of
seaworthiness to the charterer is implied in every charter of a ship. See Work, 97 U.S.
at 380. However, as is true of most implied warranties, the warranty of seaworthiness
may be waived by clear language to that effect. E.g., Cullen Fuel Co. v. W.E. Hedger,
Inc., 290 U.S. 82, 88 (1933); Thomas Jordan, Inc., 214 F.2d at 412; Zidell, Inc., 661 F.
Supp. at 962–63.
The Charter between Transatlantic and McAllister contains an unambiguous
waiver of implied warranties. The Charter provides at part II, section 3, pertaining to
delivery of the Atlantic Trader:
(c) Delivery by [McAllister] of the [Atlantic Trader] and acceptance of the
[Atlantic Trader] by [Transatlantic] shall constitute a full performance by
[McAllister] of all of [McAllister's] obligations under this Clause 3, and
thereafter [Transatlantic] shall not be entitled to make or assert any claim
against [McAllister] on account of any conditions, representations or
warranties expressed or implied with respect to the [Atlantic Trader].
5
Taking into consideration the purpose of the Charter as a contract for the charter of a
ship, the Court construes this clear waiver of implied warranties with respect to the
Atlantic Trader as encompassing the implied warranty of seaworthiness. Accord KAI
Enters., L.L.C. v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., 731 F. Supp. 2d 568, 573 (E.D. La. 2010)
(clear waiver of implied warranties relating to vessel sufficed to waive implied warranty
of seaworthiness).
Transatlantic executed the Charter containing a waiver of the implied warranty of
seaworthiness. Transatlantic also accepted delivery of the Atlantic Trader, at which
point the waiver became effective per the terms of the Charter. Transatlantic therefore
waived the implied warranty of seaworthiness McAllister otherwise would have owed it.
Portus's claim for contribution from McAllister, which rests upon McAllister's breach of
the warranty of seaworthiness to Transatlantic, fails as a matter of law.
IV. CONCLUSION
McAllister has come forward with evidence—most importantly, the Charter—
demonstrating that Transatlantic waived the implied warranty of seaworthiness when it
accepted delivery of the Atlantic Trader. Portus has presented neither facts nor
argument showing that the waiver was somehow ineffective. Nor has Transatlantic
responded to McAllister's assertion in the Motion that Transatlantic waived the implied
warranty of seaworthiness. McAllister therefore is entitled to judgment on the issue of its
potential liability to Transatlantic for providing an unseaworthy vessel. Because Portus's
claim for contribution against McAllister rests upon a theory that McAllister provided the
Atlantic Trader to Transatlantic in unseaworthy condition, McAllister likewise is entitled
to judgment on the contribution claim. It is accordingly
6
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Third-Party Defendant McAllister Towing and
Transportation Co. Inc.'s Motion for Final Summary Judgment [DE 50] is GRANTED.
Summary judgment is hereby awarded in McAllister Towing and Transportation Co.
Inc.'s favor on Defendant Portus Stevedoring LLC's claim against it for contribution. The
Court further determines pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
that no just reason for delay exists with regard to the entry of judgment concerning the
claim against McAllister Towing and Transportation Co. Inc. The Court will enter a
separate final judgment accordingly.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 17th day of July, 2015.
Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?